Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(1): 46-55, 2022 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34724405

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, disabling, and costly. Few clinical trials have examined cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) interventions embedded in primary care settings to improve chronic pain among those receiving long-term opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a group-based CBT intervention for chronic pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02113592). SETTING: Kaiser Permanente health care systems in Georgia, Hawaii, and the Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed chronic pain conditions receiving long-term opioid therapy. INTERVENTION: A CBT intervention teaching pain self-management skills in 12 weekly, 90-minute groups delivered by an interdisciplinary team (behaviorist, nurse, physical therapist, and pharmacist) versus usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported pain impact (primary outcome, as measured by the PEGS scale [pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life, general activity, and sleep]) was assessed quarterly over 12 months. Pain-related disability, satisfaction with care, and opioid and benzodiazepine use based on electronic health care data were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients participated, representing 106 clusters of primary care providers (mean age, 60.3 years; 67.4% women); 816 (96.0%) completed follow-up assessments. Intervention patients sustained larger reductions on all self-reported outcomes from baseline to 12-month follow-up; the change in PEGS score was -0.434 point (95% CI, -0.690 to -0.178 point) for pain impact, and the change in pain-related disability was -0.060 point (CI, -0.084 to -0.035 point). At 6 months, intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with primary care (difference, 0.230 point [CI, 0.053 to 0.406 point]) and pain services (difference, 0.336 point [CI, 0.129 to 0.543 point]). Benzodiazepine use decreased more in the intervention group (absolute risk difference, -0.055 [CI, -0.099 to -0.011]), but opioid use did not differ significantly between groups. LIMITATION: The inclusion of only patients with insurance in large integrated health care systems limited generalizability, and the clinical effect of change in scores is unclear. CONCLUSION: Primary care-based CBT, using frontline clinicians, produced modest but sustained reductions in measures of pain and pain-related disability compared with usual care but did not reduce use of opioid medication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/psicología , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/terapia , Atención Primaria de Salud , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Automanejo
2.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 19(1): 422, 2019 Jun 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31238950

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence is a major contributor to poor outcomes in diabetes. Previous research has shown an association between use of mail order pharmacy delivery and better medication adherence, but little is known about the barriers and facilitators to mail order pharmacy use in diabetes patients. This qualitative study examined factors related to mail order pharmacy use versus traditional "brick and mortar" pharmacies to refill prescriptions. METHODS: We conducted four 90-min focus groups in 2016 among 28 diabetes patients in the Hawaii and Northern California regions of Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated health care delivery system. We queried participants on their preferred mode for refilling prescriptions and perceived barriers and facilitators of mail order pharmacy use. One researcher independently coded each focus group transcript, with two of these transcripts double-coded by a second researcher to promote reliability. We employed thematic analysis guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) framework using NVivo 11 software. RESULTS: A total of 28 diabetes patients participated. Participants' average age was 64.1 years; 57% were female; and racial/ethnic backgrounds included Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (36%), Black/African-American (21%) Hispanic/Latino (7%), and non-Hispanic White (36%). Analysis uncovered 26 themes related to the decision to use mail order pharmacy, with each theme representing a barrier or facilitator mapped to the COM-B framework. Most themes (20/26) fell into the COM-B category of 'Opportunity.' Opportunity barriers to mail order pharmacy use included unpredictability of medication delivery date, concerns about mail security, and difficulty coordinating refill orders for multiple prescriptions. In contrast, facilitators included greater access and convenience (e.g., no need to wait in line or arrange transportation) compared to traditional pharmacies. Motivational facilitators to mail order pharmacy use included receiving a pharmacy benefit plan incentive of a free one-month supply of prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that while patients with diabetes may benefit from mail order pharmacy use, they perceive numerous barriers to using the service. These findings will inform the design of interventions and quality improvement initiatives to increase mail order pharmacy use, which in turn may improve medication adherence and outcomes in diabetes patients, across health care systems.


Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Servicios Farmacéuticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicios Postales/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , California , Femenino , Grupos Focales , Hawaii , Humanos , Masculino , Cumplimiento de la Medicación/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Investigación Cualitativa
3.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 67: 91-99, 2018 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29522897

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is one of the most common, disabling, and expensive public health problems in the United States. Interdisciplinary pain management treatments that employ behavioral approaches have been successful in helping patients with chronic pain reduce symptoms and regain functioning. However, most patients lack access to such treatments. We are conducting a pragmatic clinical trial to test the hypothesis that patients who receive an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention, the Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT), at their primary care clinic will have a greater reduction in pain impact in the year following than patients receiving usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid pragmatic clinical trial in which we randomize clusters of primary care providers and their patients with chronic pain who are on long-term opioid therapy to 1) receive an interdisciplinary behavioral intervention in conjunction with their current health care or 2) continue with current health care services. Our primary outcome is pain impact (a composite of pain intensity and pain-related interference) measured using the PEG, a validated three-item assessment. Secondary outcomes include pain-related disability, patient satisfaction, opioids dispensed and health care utilization. An economic evaluation assesses the resources and costs necessary to deliver the intervention and its cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. A formative evaluation employs mixed methods to understand the context for implementation in the participating health care systems. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform the feasibility of implementing interdisciplinary behavioral approaches to pain management in the primary care setting, potentially providing a more effective, safer, and more satisfactory alternative to opioid-based chronic pain treatment. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592.


Asunto(s)
Control de la Conducta/métodos , Dolor Crónico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Calidad de Vida , Adaptación Psicológica , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Dolor Crónico/diagnóstico , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Crónico/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/diagnóstico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/psicología , Masculino , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Grupo de Atención al Paciente , Prioridad del Paciente/psicología , Prioridad del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Atención Primaria de Salud/métodos , Recuperación de la Función/efectos de los fármacos , Resultado del Tratamiento
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 62(3): 289-297, 2016 Feb 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26417034

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A key question in care of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is beginning treatment immediately vs delaying treatment. Risks of mortality and disease progression in "real world" settings are important to assess the implications of delaying HCV treatment. METHODS: This was a cohort study of HCV patients identified from 4 integrated health systems in the United States who had liver biopsies during 2001-2012. The probabilities of death and progression to hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatic decompensation (hepatic encephalopathy, esophageal varices, ascites, or portal hypertension) or liver transplant were estimated over 1, 2, or 5 years by fibrosis stage (Metavir F0-F4) determined by biopsy at beginning of observation. RESULTS: Among 2799 HCV-monoinfected patients who had a qualifying liver biopsy, the mean age at the time of biopsy was 50.7 years. The majority were male (58.9%) and non-Hispanic white (66.9%). Over a mean observation of 5.0 years, 261 (9.3%) patients died and 34 (1.2%) received liver transplants. At 5 years after biopsy, the estimated risk of progression to hepatic decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma was 37.2% in stage F4, 19.6% in F3, 4.7% in F2, and 2.3% in F0-F1 patients. Baseline biopsy stage F3 or F4 and platelet count below normal were the strongest predictors of progression to hepatic decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of death and progression to liver failure varied greatly by fibrosis stage. Clinicians and policy makers could use these progression risk data in prioritization and in determining the timing of treatment for patients in early stages of liver disease.


Asunto(s)
Carcinoma Hepatocelular/epidemiología , Hepatitis C Crónica/complicaciones , Hepatitis C Crónica/mortalidad , Fallo Hepático/epidemiología , Adulto , Anciano , Biopsia , Estudios de Cohortes , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Cirrosis Hepática/patología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Medición de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Análisis de Supervivencia , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA